I was watching a video on YouTube the other day and the filmmakers who were reviewing whiskeys were complaining that 90 proof whiskey was too low of a proof. They wanted something that was 120 proof or higher. I thought to myself that they just don’t like the taste of whiskey because that high proof numbs the taste buds on the first drink and dulls the taste of the drinks afterwards. THERE IS NOTHING “WEAK” about 90 proof whiskey.
Historically, even Taft said in his famous decision on whiskey that drinkable proof was between 90 and 105 proof. Pre-prohibition whiskey would have been entered into the barrel in this proof range because it would finish aging at a proof that people could enjoy straight from the barrel. Pre-prohibition whiskey was often sold straight from the barrel even after bottling whiskey became economically feasible for distillers. After the Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 was passed, 100 proof became the standard for bottled whiskey, but many distillers bottled whiskey at less than 100 proof, as well as, a bonded product.
After prohibition, there were many brands that had 90 proof expressions of the brand. At Stitzel-Weller, they had a four year old Cabin Still that was 90 proof Bourbon and a seven year old Weller Special Reserve 90 proof Bourbon to appeal to customers that did not want 100 proof Bourbons. Cabin Still was reduced to 86 proof as the trend to lower proof whiskeys grew in America in the 1950s, but Weller Special Reserve remained at 90 proof.
Whiskey bottled at 90 proof does have to be filtered more to prevent flocking, a haze caused in whiskey when it gets cold. This can be a good thing when the whiskey comes from the upper levels of the warehouse where the oak tannins are increased with aging. I have heard Eddie Russell say that he uses the barrels from the upper levels for Wild Turkey bottled at a lower proof than the traditional 101 proof for this reason.
I like many 90 proof whiskeys. I used to love the seven year old Weller Special Reserve and Makers Mark, another 90 proof whiskey, is another go-to Bourbon when I am at a bar. A 90 proof whiskey has a lot of flavor in the drink. I like to think that there was a reason the distiller decided to bottle the whiskey at 90 proof. Barrel strength or even possibly 100 proof may have left in too much tannins from the wood, making the whiskey bitter and with a tannic burn. Whiskey bottled at 90 proof deserves my respect.
So the next time you drink a whiskey that was bottled at 90 proof, consider the reasons why the distiller bottled it at that proof. Enjoy the whiskey for what it is and don’t complain that it is too low in proof.
Photos Courtesy of Rosemary Miller
April 29, 2024 at 12:11 pm
Nicely stated. My go to proof point is 100-110 with 115 being as high like to go. If the bourbon is well crafted 90-proof is fine, but it has to be really well done.
April 29, 2024 at 1:00 pm
The only YouTube videos worth watching are yours (in my opinion). The online bourbon landscape, generally speaking, has been co-opted by opportunistic hucksters. Bourbon appreciation is a fad at the moment, and, like most fads, rarely does the conversation get past the superficial. Keep up the important work.
April 29, 2024 at 3:20 pm
Thanks Michael! You’ve addressed an interesting question. I also tend to stay away from bourbons that are lower proofs, but agree in search of higher proofs not all distilleries do it well.
April 29, 2024 at 5:06 pm
I’ve always though of 90 proof as being the standard strength for quality bourbon, and that 86 was an historical economy measure. 90 was about the top before Wild Turkey and the later rise of BiB . (I thought JD went too far in dropping to 80.) I always buy 90 and stronger, not because I like a strong drink – I find that the burn hides the flavor, but because high proof spirits can melt enough ice to get nice and cold without getting weak.
April 29, 2024 at 6:11 pm
The reviewers and filmmakers on the YouTube video you say, who complained that 90 proof whiskey was too low of a proof and wanted only 120 proof or higher whiskey, showing ignorance and a lack of whiskey knowledge. It shows the hugely varying quality of whiskey reviews (and reviewers) in today’s age of podcasts and YouTube videos.
April 29, 2024 at 6:19 pm
Well put. Most of them are pre-occupied with proof and “trophies”.
April 30, 2024 at 12:25 pm
Agreed! Some of these same folks also categorize other generally lower alcohol by volume (ABV) brands/expressions, as beginner whiskey. This seems counterproductive and questionable.
There is also overlap or subset groups who prefer seemingly bitter, drier, oaky, spicier, and sour whisk(e)y that may, or may not, have a higher ABV.
Among single malt barley lovers, there are so-called peat heads who fixate on extremely high phenolic beverages that are arguably more bitter, sour and spicy, but not as rich or sweet. There are also some who are arguably more sensitive to sulfur.
Some of these same folks can unintentionally dissuade other reasonable folks from appreciating exceptional and seemingly well balanced spirits through peer pressure and belittlement.
They can arguably promote whisk(e)y that even experienced drinkers may consider a bit nasty or in need of additives like caramelized sugar, sherry, vermouth, etc. Yet, we ought to agree to disagree at times.
Drink responsibly and hold some of the criticism because a person’s tastebuds may differ in construction. Learn to accept that you may like something that a few outspoken folks claim to despise or find less than appetizing.
And yes, it’s often best to let the jaded or opinionated among us, speak their minds, or wax, without interruption. To each, their own. Cheers.
April 30, 2024 at 12:29 pm
Good thoughts. Thank you.
April 30, 2024 at 6:33 pm
The late, eminent Elmer T. Lee put his signature on his eponymous bourbon that was made to be enjoyed on the front porch – all ninety proof of it, as the label said.
I think my lowest strength bourbon is an export bottle of Woodford, clocking in at 86.4 proof; most of what I have is 90, save for WT101, and they’re all a fine drink to savor.